No, exactly the opposite. It exposes a) that faith and truth are not actually opposed and b) the hubris of those who claim to operate by some faithless mode of knowing. The humanists have a faith; so do the materialists etc. They are false faiths, though.
well, again, I think it is sophistic to conflate the trust in senses and experience to that which concerns metaphysical truths and things-yet-to-come. "faith based" is made to imply that our beliefs are only personal convictions about such, and not also about certain facts.
-
-
The existence of the exterior world is a metaphysical claim.
-
it's not and you know it isn't.
-
Of course it is.
-
it's not. People wake up in the morning in the exterior world, needing no claim (metaphysical or otherwise) that the world in which they exist, exists. It simply is. You can doubt its existence, but this is generally a form of academic skepticism.
-
Yhere is no way whatever world you wake up in corresponds to the world others inhabit, or that you are not the only conscious mind within it etc. I agree that *in reality* people do wake up and are in the world that just is, because their mode of being is a natural faith..
-
Incorrect, although I can imagine that humans which were raised outside of contact of another human being might genuinely have this issue. You spend the first 9 months of your life INSIDE another human, if this is not "the same world", what is
-
I just said it is that world. I am asking how someone who denies the necessity of faith for knowing can establish that, given that the experience of being inside a human could be a deception (or that you could be the first human born with conscious experience, rest automotons).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
